Hoyt v. Gelston & Schenck

New York Supreme Court

Hoyt v. Gelston & Schenck

8 Johns. 179

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedMay 15, 1811

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 8 Johns. 179 (Hoyt v. Gelston & Schenck) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hoyt v. Gelston & Schenck, 8 Johns. 179 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1811).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The cause in the district court has been unnecessarily delayed on the part of the public prosecutor ; for the officers of the United States may, in case of the sickness of the judge of the district court, remove the cause into the circuit court. An indefinite imparlance, therefore, is unreasonable, and ought not to be granted.

Further time to plead was, however, given, on the motion of the defendant’s counsel, until the 1st July next.

Motion denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The cause in the district court has been unnecessarily delayed on the part of the public prosecutor ; for the officers of the United States may, in case of the sickness of the judge of the district court, remove the cause into the circuit court. An indefinite imparlance, therefore, is unreasonable, and ought not to be granted.

Further time to plead was, however, given, on the motion of the defendant’s counsel, until the 1st July next.

Motion denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 Johns. 179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoyt-v-gelston-schenck-nysupct-1811.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack